10 Chapter 4

85

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

This section presents an analysis of the socio-economic and demographic

characteristics of the samples as well as their relationship with eco-awareness,

their attitude, behavior and perceived barrier to green lifestyle. In order to

visualize a better understanding of the basic profile of the sample surveyed and

to obtain a description of distribution of responses, percentage to each variable

were taken into consideration.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of respondents

S No. General Information Number Percentage

1

Age in Years

a. 19-29

b. 30-39

c. 40-49

d. 50 and above

387

94

12

7

77.4

18.8

2.4

1.4

2 Gender Male Female

285

215

57

43

3

Household Income/ month (INR)

Under- 15000

15000- 30000

30000- 50000

50000- 75000

75000 and above

111

175

119

43

52

22.2

35

23.8

8.6

10.4

4

Educational Qualification:

Graduate

Post Graduate

310

190

62

38

5

Occupation:

Students

House wife

Business

Service

205

40

93

162

41

8

18.6

32.4

86

The majority (77%) of the sample was young, falling under the age group of

19-26 years. 18.8% were of 30-39 years of age while 40-49 year old people

were 2.4% and only 1.4% people were 50 years and above. Out of 300

questionnaires distributed to males, only 285 properly filled questionnaire were

received which comprised 57% of the sample. Whereas, out of 300 distributed

to females, only 215 questionnaires were valid.

For the study only educated people were considered. The findings revealed that

62.2% were graduates and remaining 37.8% were postgraduates. Of those who

reported their job types, the majority (41%) were students, followed by service

class people (32.4%) and self-employed (18.6%). 8% were housewives.

Majority of respondents (35%) had monthly income between Rs15000-30000.

Respondents having income between Rs 30000-50000 were 23%. The monthly

personal income of respondents below Rs. 15000 was found to be (22%), Only

8% of the respondents had income between Rs. 50000-75000 per month.

4.2 ASSESSMENT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER VARIABLES:

A number of past studies have made attempts to identify demographic

variables that correlate with ecologically conscious attitudes and behavior.

Such variables, if significant, offer easy and efficient ways for marketers to

segment the market and capitalize on green attitudes and behavior. Consumers

awareness regarding green products can be assessed by way of applying

different analytical tools. From the present research study; the researcher

intended to know about the attitudes and behavior of the respondents and to

identify perceived obstacles in the way of adoption of green lifestyle. Chi

square test and ANOVA have been employed for the analysis of data.

87

In the study of consumer behavior, demographic characteristics play a vital

role. It is said that consumer attitude and behavior depend greatly on the

demographic attributes they carry. Keeping in view the objective of finding out

the relationship between demographic attributes and their respective

environmental concerns, the present study took up one way ANOVA test. In

the test quantitative demographic variables such as age and income level of the

respondents were separately taken to see the relationship between

demographics and environmental concern.

Age carries with it culturally defined behavioral and attitudinal norms (Alreck

2000)5. Age affects consumers self concept and life styles (Henry 2000)

61.

Age determines the consumption of various products, media and shopping

centers, and has been used by marketers to segment the markets. Hence, age

might be responsible for consumer differential eco-behavior.

Table 2: ANOVA TABLE

Table showing the relationship between age and environmental concern

Source

of

variance SS Df MS F-ratio

5% F-limit

from F-table

Between

Samples 22891.69 (4-1)=3 7630.5633 15.773774 F(3,16)=3.24

Within

Samples 7740 (20-4)=16 483.75

Total

30631.69 (20-1)=19

Note: SS=sum of the squares, df= degree of freedom, MS=Mean

square

88

Taking age as an independent variable and eco concern as dependent variable,

the above table shows that, the calculated value of F is 15.77 (approx), which

is more than the table value ie. 3.24 at 5% level with d.f. being v1=3 and v2=16.

This could not have arisen because of chance but due to the difference in

sample means. It proves the first part of the 1st hypothesis which states that

Environmental concern varies with age and income of respondents. Hence, it

is inferred that, the difference in opinion about different variables (Attitude,

behavior and lifestyle etc.) is visible and is due to the difference in age level of

the respondents.

Once it was established that age has an impact upon the attitude, behavior and

respondents perception about adoption green lifestyle, percentage analysis was

done to establish the nature of relationship between age of the respondents and

their eco- concern.

In the survey multiple choice questions were presented to respondents about

their knowledge, attitude, purchase and conservation behavior (Refer Appendix

A for Questionnaire). All multiple choice questions with 4 options were asked

and the percentage response to each option was taken into consideration. For

the purpose of establishing relationship between demographics and eco-

concern of the sample population the percentage response towards various

questions are classified as under:

89

AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS

RESPONSES

Table 3

Response of samples to various questions (age group of 19-29 years)

(All values are in percentages)

SNo Knowledge Attitude Purchase

Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers to

green lifestyle

1 13.9539 7.49354005 12.9198966 9.302325581 9.302325581

2 48.0629 20.1550387 34.3669250 37.20930233 37.20930233

3 28.1659 32.0413436 24.2894056 22.73901809 22.73901809

4 9.819 40.3100775 28.4237726 30.74935401 30.74935401

Figure 13: Analysis of respondents opinion (age 19-29 years)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

knowledge Attitude Pur Behav Con Behav Barriers

Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 19-29 years)

4

3

2

1

90

Knowledge: It is observed that, the youngest of all respondents, showed good

knowledge i.e., 13% had great idea As many people have responded to know

a great deal about solid waste disposal in the knowledge section of the

questionnaire about the environment, 48% knew a lot about the environment,

28% possess some idea, while 9% were those who did not have any

information about environmental degradation.

Attitude: The attitude of this group showed a poor sign as only 7% fell under

the category of most positive attitude, 20% were those who were somewhat

positive but 32% people under this group had a little non-environmental

attitude, and the major part of the population i.e., 40% had a very reluctant

attitude towards the environment.

Purchase Behavior: It was found that, the behavior pattern of this group was

also not very satisfactory as 12% were very religiously behaving towards

purchasing green products, 34% behaved in a green manner while purchasing,

although 24% were those who were not very keen to buy green and 28% were

under the category of non green purchasers.

Conservation behavior: Regarding conservation behavior, it was found that,

among this age group, 9% were highly involved in conserving resources. It was

evident from the fact that they conserve water, recycle bottles and cans, and

avoid excessive packaging. Majority (37%) were conserving resources,

whereas 22% were less interested in such acts. 30% of respondents were not at

all concerned with conserving resources.

Barriers to Green lifestyle: It was found that, the perceived barriers to green

lifestyle for this group was lowest for only 9% respondents, while 37% felt that

the barriers are not very high, 22% perceived very high barriers and found

really difficult to adopt green lifestyle, while 30% assumed that barriers were

too high to cross.

91

Table 4

Response of samples to various questions (age group of 30-39)


Figure 14: Analysis of Respondents opinions (Age 30-39 years)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Analysis of respondents' opinion (Age 30-39 years)

4

3

2

1

SNo Knowledge Attitude Purchase

Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers to

Green

Lifestyle

1 9.574468085 57.4468085 15.95744681 6.382979 8.510638

2 40.42553191 20.2127659 44.68085106 43.61702 43.61702

3 28.72340426 18.0851063 21.27659574 26.59574 21.2766

4 21.27659574 4.25531914 18.08510638 23.40426 26.59574

92

Knowledge: This age group of respondents showed that only 9% had great

idea about the environment, 40% knew a lot about the environment, 28%

possessed some idea, while 21% were those who did not have any information

about the environmental degradation.

Attitude: The majority i.e., 57% of this age group people were found to have

very positive eco attitude because they believe there is a lot that individuals can

do to improve the environment. 20% were those who were somewhat positive,

18% people had a little non environmental attitude. Showing signs of maturity,

this group had the lowest of all i.e., only 4% of the population with negative

attitude towards the environment as they said that plastic has become a lifestyle

in Pune and it is impossible to avoid it.

Purchase Behavior: Unlike attitude, the purchase behavior of this group was

not very promising. 15% people of this age group behaved in an eco friendly

manner while purchasing. 44% (the highest) behaved in a green manner while

purchasing, although 21% were those who were not very keen to buy green.

18% were under the category of non green purchasers.

Conservation Behavior: This age group showed a similar pattern in

conservation behavior as well. In this group only 6% of people were found to

conserve resources as very few has said that they write to politicians to draw

their attention towards environmental issues. 44%, the majority were

conserving resources to some extent. 26% of this group was less interested in

such acts, while 23% were not conserving any resources at all.

Barriers to green lifestyle: The perceived barriers in the way of adoption of

green lifestyle for this age group were very high for the majority of people ie

43% as they find the green lifestyle to be very expensive. Only 8% said that

such lifestyle is required. Respondents felt that the barriers were not very high.

21% found barriers to be high and found it really difficult to adopt green

lifestyle. While 26% assumes barriers too high to cross.

93

Table 5

Response of samples to various questions (age group of 40-49 years)


Figure 15: Analysis of respondents opinion (age 40-49 years)

0

20

40

60

80

100


Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 40-49 years)

4

3

2

1

S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase

Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers to

Green

Lifestyle

1 0 75 0 0 8.333333

2 25 8.33333333 66.6666666 83.33333 16.66667

3 58.3333333 8.33333333 33.3333333 16.66667 50

4 16.6666666 8.33333333 0 0 25

94

Knowledge: It is the catastrophe only, that not a single person in this so called

mature group possesses entire information about environmental degradation

(0%). Only 25% knew a lot about the environment 58% had some idea, while

16% did not have any information about the environmental degradation as they

reported to have no knowledge about the global warming.

Attitude: Although the knowledge part was low, the attitude of this group was

quite encouraging with majority i.e. 75% were enriched with most positive

attitude and in all other categories the responses were equivocal i.e. 8.33%.

Purchase Behavior: Unlike attitude the results of purchase behavior of this

age group were very de-motivating. In this group no one was in the extreme

favor of purchasing green products (0%) but still this group consisted of 66%

people behaving in green manner while purchasing as they opt for products

whose packages can be reused. 33% members of this group were those who

were not very keen to buy green. But this group did not have any member who

never went in for green purchases.

Conservation Behavior: This age group showed a similar pattern in

conservation behavior as well. In this group none (0%) conserved resources

dutifully. Majority (83%) answered that they conserved resources energy and

water, 16% were not very much interested in such acts, while there was no one

who did not believe in resource conservation. Thus it can be concluded that

this category is neither strictly green nor anti green.

Perceived Barriers to Green Lifestyle: The perceived barriers to green

lifestyle for this group was lowest for only 8% of respondents, 16% were of

opinion that the barriers were not very high. As these people does not fine such

lifestyle to be expensive or time consuming. However, there existed a blockage

in the minds of 50% people that the barriers in adaptation of green life were

very high hence it was really difficult to adopt green lifestyle. 25% of the

respondents found barriers too high to cross because according to them it is not

required only.

95

Table 6

Response of samples to various questions (age group of 50 yrs and above)

Figure16: Analysis of respondents opinion (age 50 years and above)

0

20

40

60

80

100


Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 50 years and above)

4

3

2

1


Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers to Green

Lifestyle

1 0 85.7142857 0 0 0

2 14.2857142 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 57.1428571 57.14286 14.28571

4 85.7142857 14.2857142 42.8571428 42.85714 85.71429

96

Knowledge: The most mature group of all, lacked in-depth knowledge about

the environment, as no one had great deal of knowledge about the

environmental degradation (0%). 14% knew a lot, and many people (0%) did

not even know something about it. The majority (85%) did not have answered

all knowledge related questions in the negative side that means they does not

have any clue of environmental degradation.

Attitude: The oldest of all respondents showed a very positive attitude with

85% falling in the first category of highly positive attitude. Very negative

attitude holders were just 14%, whereas mediocre were none (Both middle

categories have 0%)

Purchase Behavior: The elders failed to behave in an eco friendly manner

with no one purchasing green products (0% in first two categories). All fell

towards the negative side ie 57% and 42% respectively in the last two

categories like people never volunteer for an environmental group.

Conservation Behavior: The same is the case with conservation behavior.

This age group shows exactly the same results for conservation behavior as it

was for purchase behavior.

Barriers to green lifestyle: Similarly there does not appear any scope for

adopting green lifestyle. Whatever be the reason the older lot saw high barriers

in adaptation of green lifestyle too (14% and 85%) respectively.

To conclude, it was observed that the consumers behavior changes with age.

The present study testifies that the younger generation is more into saving the

ecology.

Age has been explored by a number of researchers with regard to ecology and

green marketing. The general belief is that younger individuals are likely to be

more sensitive to environmental issues. There are a number of theories in

support of this belief, but the most common argument is that those who have

97

grown up in a time period in which environmental concerns have been an

important issue , are more likely to be sensitive towards ecology.

The results of the present study which found the age to be negatively related to

eco concern substantiate many researchers view who found the relationship

between age to be significant and negatively correlated with environmental

sensitivity and/or behavior (e.g.Thompson147

et al., 2010, Van98

1994).

Sardianou137

(2007) taking age as a deciding factor for electricity expenditures

found age to be negatively associated with the number of energy-conserving

actions that a consumer is willing to adopt, is in confirmation with present

study which shows that the oldest generation does not show any conservation

behavior.

However, others have found the relationship to be significant, but positively

correlated (e.g. Roberts132

, 1996). Explanations for this positive correlation

include attitudes formed as a result of depression-era'' conservation

(Roberts132

, 1996) and/or behaviors stemming from a general increase in social

and ecologically conscious consumers.

INCOME WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS:

Income of the family combined with the family's accumulated wealth,

determines their purchasing power (Hawkins60

et al 2003). However, income

enables purchases but does not generally cause or explain them. It is likely that

the occupation and education directly influence the preferences for products,

media and activities. Income provides the means to acquire them (Mulhern112

et al 1998). Jain and Sharma80

(2002). Slama and Taschian142

(1985) identified

that income influences the involvement levels.

98

To test the 3rd

Hypothesis which says that Environmental concern varies with

age and income of respondents ANOVA test was used in the following

manner:

Table 7 ANOVA TABLE

(Showing relationship between Income and environmental concern)

Source of

variance SS Df MS F-ratio

5% F-limit

(from F-Table)

Between Sample 4171.44 (5-1)= 4 1042.86 6.41602 F(4,20)=2.87

Within Sample 3250.8 (25-5)= 20 162.54

Total 7422.24 (25-1)= 24

The above table exhibits that the calculated value of F is 6.416 (aprox.), which

is more than the table value of 2.87 at 5% level with d.f. being v1=4 and v2=20

and hence could have arisen because of difference in the sample means and not

because of chance. This analysis accepts the 3rd

hypothesis of difference in

sample means. It can therefore be concluded that the difference in opinion

about different variables (Attitude, behavior and lifestyle etc.) is significant

and because of difference in income level of the respondents.

In other words, it can be said that the income is a deciding factor which

influences the consumers buying and conservation behavior.

99

Table 8

Response to various questions (Income level Rs.15000 or less p. m.)

Figure17: Analysis of respondents opinion (Income under Rs.15000

p.m.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Analysis of respondent's opinion (Income under 15000 Rs. p.m. )

4

3

2

1


Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers

to Green

Lifestyle

1 12.61261261 6.306306306 13.51351351 9.009009 11.71171

2 31.53153153 26.12612613 53.15315315 47.74775 21.62162

3 38.73873874 28.82882883 24.32432432 30.63063 48.64865

4 17.11711712 38.73873874 9.009009009 12.61261 18.01802

100

Knowledge: Only 12% of the respondents reported to have great information

about environment. 31% in this group knew sufficient about environmental

degradation. The majority of the group members (38%) knew something about

environment and 17% were those who did not have any information about

environmental degradation. Hence it can be inferred that the lowest income

group of Pune possessed low knowledge about environment as most of the

respondents knew nothing about global warming.

Attitude: The attitude of this group also showed a poor sign as most of the

people did not consider themselves to be responsible or efficient to improve the

natural environment as they responded in the negative side of this particular

question. The study showed that 6% people had a good positive attitude, 26%

were those who were to an extent positive but 28% people of this group had a

little non environmental attitude, and the major part of the population ie. 38%

had reluctant attitude towards the environment.

Purchase Behavior: Unlike attitude the behavior pattern of this group was

quite satisfactory as 13% behaved in the direction of purchasing green

products. Majority (53%) behaved in a green manner while purchasing,

although 24% consisted of those who were not very keen to buy green and

28% fell under the category of non green purchasers.

Conservation Behavior: Majority of them (37%) conserved resources to some

extent as they reported top saver energy and water but do not avoid non veg for

environmental protection, 22% were less interested in such acts, while 30% did

not conserve any resource at all. Only 9% of this group was seriously involved

in conserving resources as they said that they write to politicians about the

environmental issues and recycle bottles and cans.

Barriers to green lifestyle: Barriers as revealed by the study were very high

for 9% of the respondents, 37% felt that the barriers were not very high, 22%

found barriers to be high and showed difficulty to adopt green lifestyle, while

101

30% said that barriers were too high to cross as they reported to have no

information about it.

Table 9

Response of respondents to various questions (Income level Rs. 15000-

30000 p.m.)


Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers

to Green

Lifestyle

1 10.2857142 8.57142857 10.2857142 4.571429 8

2 49.1428571 21.1428571 30.8571428 30.85714 40

3 29.7142857 33.7142857 33.7142857 40 22.85714

4 10.8571428 36.5714285 25.1428571 24.57143 29.14286

Figure 18: Analysis of respondents opinion (income Rs. 15000-30000

p.m.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Analysis of respondent's opinion (Income level Rs. 15000-30000 p.m.)

4

3

2

1

102

Knowledge: The middle income earners of Pune were not well aware of

environmental knowledge. Only 10% reported to have proper environmental

knowledge. The good sign is that the maximum respondents of the group ie

49% had considerably good knowledge of environment. 29% had some

knowledge while 10% were reluctant as they answered that they have no

information about the green lifestyle and its not even required.

Attitude: The attitude shown by this group was not very encouraging. This

group consisted of only 8% with very positive attitude, 21% were positive to

some extent, 33% were a little negligent and majority (36%) showed an

unfavorable attitude.

Purchase Behavior: Just like their knowledge and attitude, these people had

not showed enthusiasm towards green purchase behavior. 10% of this group

always bought green products, 30% bought green frequently, 33% were

occasional buyers, but a considerably high percentage (25%) was of those who

did not buy green any time.

Conservation Behavior: Similarly responses towards conservation behavior

showed that only 4% were very much interested in conservation of resources.

30% conserved resources occasionally. Maximum (40%) had little concern for

environment and 24% were non conservers.

Barriers to green lifestyle: Although this group falls under the middle income

category, still people were quite interested in adopting green lifestyle as 8%

reported to have adopted the green lifestyle Most i.e., 40% did not see tall

barriers in the way, 22% found some hurdles while 29% people were of an

opinion that the green lifestyle is at all not easy.

103

Table 9

Response to various questions (Income level Rs. 30000-50000)


Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers to

Green

Lifestyle

1 11.76471 8.403361 14.28571 8.403361 5.042017

2 51.2605 5.042017 31.93277 34.45378 32.77311

3 21.0084 32.77311 16.80672 21.0084 19.32773

4 15.96639 53.78151 36.97479 36.13445 42.85714

Figure 19: Analysis of respondents' opinion (Income Rs.30000-50000

p.m.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Analysis of respondents' opinion (Income level Rs.30000-50000 p.m.)

4

3

2

1

104

Knowledge: The higher middle income group of Pune showed a better

knowledge about environment since they consisted of 14% well informed

people. In this income group, 51% people had sufficient information, 21 %

were those who did not have sound knowledge about it, while 13% did not

have any knowledge.

Attitude: This group showed a very negative attitude towards green as only

5% had very positive attitude, same was the percentage (5%) for good attitude.

32% consisted of those who did not possess positive attitude while the majority

of 56% were reluctant.

Purchase Behavior: As far as behavior was concerned, the higher middle

income people were found to be non green purchasers. Only 5% said that they

bought green products regularly, 31% bought green products frequently, 16%

of them bought green sometime, and the highest of all (36%) did not buy green

any time.

Conservation Behavior: The conservation behavior of this group revealed that

only 7% members of this group conserved the resources regularly.34%

sometimes conserved resources. 21% of them did not express much interested

in resource conservation conserving and 36% were non conservers.

Barriers to green lifestyle: 5% of people did not perceive barriers to green life

style, 32% saw very less barriers, while 19% felt high barriers, and majority of

them (42%) were reluctant to adopt green life style as the barriers are too high

to cross.

105

Table 10

Respondents response to various questions (Income level Rs.50000-75000

p.m.)

Figure 20: Analysis of respondents opinion (Income Rs. 50000-75000)

0

20

40

60

80

100


Analysis of respondent's opinion (Income Rs. 50000-75000)

4

3

2

1

Knowledge Attitude Purchase

Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers to

Green

Lifestyle

1 9.615384615 3.846153846 15.38461538 13.46154 13.46154

2 50 13.46153846 42.30769231 40.38462 32.69231

3 25 34.61538462 13.46153846 21.15385 13.46154

4 15.38461538 48.07692308 28.84615385 25 40.38462

106

Knowledge: This financially well off group did not have very wide

knowledge as only 9% reported to have full knowledge about environment.

(50%) in this group had sufficient knowledge. This income group included

25% people who just had a little environmental knowledge. A few of them

(15%) did not know anything about the environmental degradation.

Attitude: The attitude of this group showed an inclination towards negative

with only 3% showed a very strong green attitude, 13% had a positive attitude,

13% of the group members were still low in attitude and 48% were reluctant.

Purchase Behavior: As far as behavior pattern is concern, this group with low

environmental attitude 15% always bought green, and 42% frequently

purchased eco friendly products. Only 13% had little non green purchase

behavior whereas 28% of them possessed very non green behavior traits.

Conservation Behavior: The conservation behavior of this group was also

satisfactory. 13% behaved in eco conservation manner. 40% were good at

conserving resources, 21% were not really concerned. A prominent 25%

people, did not believe in conserving resources.

Barriers to green lifestyle: A prominent portion of this income group (32%)

had adopted a green lifestyle while only 13% were in the process of adoption.

13% of them were not able to overcome the barriers in the way of adopting

green lifestyle, and 40% did not believe that these hurdles can be removed.

107

Table 11:

Respondents response to various questions (Income level Rs.75000 p.m.

and above)

Figure 21: Analysis of respondents opinion (Income-Rs. 75000 p.m. and

above)

0

20

40

60

80

100


Analysis of respondents' opinion

(Income-Rs. 75000 p. m. and above)

4

3

2

1

Knowledge Attitude Purchase

Behavior

Conservation

Behavior

Barriers to

Green

Lifestyle

1 10.96774194 7.419354839 12.25806452 6.451613 9.032258

2 44.83870968 21.29032258 37.09677419 36.45161 33.54839

3 31.29032258 32.25806452 29.67741935 35.16129 31.6129

4 12.90322581 39.03225806 20.96774194 21.93548 25.80645

108

Knowledge: The highest income group of Pune were mediocre as far as

knowledge is concern, with 10% of the sample falling in the area of high

information holders, 44% had proper knowledge and 31% had some

information about environmental degradation, and only 12% had no knowledge

about environment.

Attitude: Attitude of this group did not give a pleasant picture; here only 7%

were highly positive about the environment problems. 21% showed a good

attitude about environment, 32% did not have very positive attitude, whereas

39% were not having eco friendly attitude.

Purchase Behavior: The purchase behavior shown by this income group was

also acceptable. As 12% respondents had a very positive purchase behavior,

37% having interest in green purchasing frequently, 29% were not such

frequent green purchasers while 20% were not buying green at all.

Conservation Behavior: Regarding conservation behavior, the high income

earners were not very different from other groups. Only 6% were very good at

conserving resources, 36% were found to conserve resources at a satisfactory

level and again 35% were those who occasionally showed conservation

behavior, whereas 21% did not conserve resources.

Barriers to green lifestyle: The barriers do not exist only for 9% people in

this income group, although 33% people expressed the presence of some

barriers, but 31% of the group members were not very keen to adopt green

lifestyle, and 25% were not bothered about eco friendly lifestyle.

Income is generally thought to be positively related to environmental

sensitivity. The most common justification for this belief is that individuals

can, at higher income levels, bear the marginal increase in costs associated

with supporting green causes and favoring green product offerings. Numerous

109

studies have addressed the role of income as a predictor of ECCB

(Environmental concern conservation behavior) or a related construct.

Other studies have shown a non significant direct effect of income on

environmental awareness (e.g. Thompson147

et al, 2010; Antil7 (1978);

Liere98

,1981) However, the opposite is the case with present study were there

exist significant relationship between income level and eco concern of people.

Several other studies have shown the widely mentioned positive relationship

between income and environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Roper73

,

1990; 1992;). Finally, a few studies have found the opposite, a negative

relationship between income and environmental concerns (e.g. Roberts132

,

1996;) . In his study, Roberts (1996) theorizes that the differences shown in

early studies may have been washed out by the overall growth in

environmental concerns across all income levels. He also cautions that

although the relationship in his study was significant, the amount of variance

explained was small.

Thus it can be concluded that the overall concern of consumers towards

ecology, to a great extent is driven by the age level they belongs to, and the

income level of the consumers. It is very important to mention here. Where the

age is negatively related to eco concern (age increases, eco concern decreases);

income level has relatively positive relation with the eco concern may be

because of the high cost associated with green products.

These assertions are clearly generalizations. However, they are based on

discernible statistical patterns. What must be noted is that there are no clear

distinctions that can be drawn along a continuum, from committed to non-

environmentalist. There are variable demographic characteristics depending

on which cluster one examines. Nonetheless, there are clear trends that have

significant implications for policy makers

110

4.3 ASSESMENT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDE AND

BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO GREEN PRODUCTS: (CHI

SQUARE TEST)

The relationship between attitudes and behavior is one, which has been

explored in a variety of contexts. In the environmental literature, the question

has been addressed by exploring the relationship between the attitudinal

construct, environmental concern, and various behavioral measures and/or

observations. For establishing a relationship between attitude and both types of

behaviors i.e. purchase and conservation, the Chi Square test was used. For the

sake of accuracy, the relation of each attitude question was checked with each

behavior question.

The first attitude (Independent variable) question I believe there is a lot that,

individuals can do to improve the environment was checked for its

relationship with all purchase behavior questions with the help of chi square

test in the following manner:

111

Table 13

Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 1) and purchase behavior

I believe there is a lot that individuals can do to improve the environment

(A1)

To test the first hypothesis, a Chi Square test was performed on the collected

data. The first attitude question (Column) was tested with all purchase behavior

questions (Rows). The table value of 2 for 9 d.f. at 5% level of significance is

16.9. The calculated value of 2 in each case was much higher than the table

value which means that, the calculated value cannot be said to have arisen just

because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis holds good. This

means that the attitude of considering oneself capable of doing something good

to the environment portrayed by the respondents does not relate with the

purchase behavior. Hypothesis 2 accepted.

Chi square df Significance

level

Table

value

10. Avoid buying products which are tested

on animals 53.617077 9 5% sign 16.9

11. Read labels before buying to see if

contents are environmentally safe 86.867713 9 5% sign 16.9

12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents etc. 41.762629 9 5% sign 16.9

13. Buy products whose packages can be

reused 54.717213 9 5% sign 16.9

14. Carry own bags to supermarkets 52.29472 9 5% sign 16.9

15. Buying bio fuel 238.03978 9 5% sign 16.9

16. Buy products which contribute money

for environment protection cause 71.491834 9 5% sign 16.9

17. Buy organic foods and bottled water 84.520354 9 5% sign 16.9

18. Boycott tuna, ivory, leather 163.82587 9 5% sign 16.9

19. Buy cruelty free cosmetics 362.43377 9 5% sign 16.9

20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal

site 303.38184 9 5% sign 16.9

112

Table 14:


I believe there is a lot that Pune Municipal Corporation can do to improve the

environment (A2)

To test first hypothesis, a Chi Square test was performed on the data where

second attitude question (Column) was tested with all purchase behavior

questions (Rows) The table value of 2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of

significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 in each case was much higher

than the table value which means that the calculated value cannot be said to

have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis

holds good. This means that the attitude that Municipal corporation can

improve the environment as given by respondents does not relate with their

purchase behavior. Hypothesis 2 accepted.

Chi

square d.f.

Significance

level

Table

Vale


on animals 307.426 9 5% sign 16.9


contents are environmentally safe 592.541 9 5% sign 16.9



reused 407.46 9 5% sign 16.9



16. Buy products which contribute money for

environment protection cause 574.824 9 5% sign 16.9





site 664.831 9 5% sign 16.9

113

Table 15:


Plastic has become a lifestyle in Pune and it is impossible to (A3)

Chi square d. f. Signific-

ance

level

Table

Value


on animals

135.059301 9 5% sign 16.9


contents are environmentally safe

173.574154 9 5% sign 16.9

12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents

etc.

162.128914 9 5% sign 16.9


reused

136.61778 9 5% sign 16.9



16. Buy products which contribute money

for environment protection cause

78.6936688 9 5% sign 16.9





site

312.063249 9 5% sign 16.9

Respondents, who consider the municipal corporation as a responsible

authority for the betterment of the eco system, may or may not depict eco

friendly purchase behavior when it comes to their own buying behavior.

The 2nd

hypothesis, was again tested for its validity with the help of Chi

Square test which as performed on the data where third attitude question

(Column) was tested with all purchase behavior questions (Rows) The table

value of 2

for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The

calculated value of 2 in each case was much higher than the table value which

means that the calculated value cannot be said to have arisen just because of

chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis does hold good. This means that

the attitude towards plastic which has become a lifestyle of Pune is impossible

114

to change, answered by the respondents does not relate with their purchase

behavior. Hypothesis 2 accepted.

Thus, those people who accept plastic as a daily requirement and a part of

human lifestyle, do not behave in eco friendly manner when they go for buying

goods, and the vice versa case is also equally true.

Table 16


I believe in the environmental Information of product label (A4)

Chi

square

d.

f.

Significa-

nce

level

Table

value

10. Avoid buying products which are tested on

animals

264.606 9 5% sign 16.9

11. Read labels before buying to see if contents

are environmentally safe

396.846 9 5% sign 16.9


13. Buy products whose packages can be reused 310.61 9 5% sign 16.9



16. Buy products which contribute money for

environment protection cause

296.308 9 5% sign 16.9




20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal site 735.171 9 5% sign 16.9

Finally the fourth and the last attitude question (Column) was tested with all

purchase behavior questions (Rows) the table value of 2

for 9 degrees of

freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 in each

case is much higher than the table value which means that the calculated value

cannot be said to have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence,

the hypothesis hold good. This means that the attitude of respondents belief in

the environmental information on the product does not relate with the purchase

behavior. Hypothesis 2 again accepted.

115

Hence it can be said that even those who believe in the environmental

information on the product label does not purchase such products, the reason

could be anything ranging from non availability of such products to the

expensive nature of green products.

The researcher was planning to find out the nature of relationship between

attitude and behavior but, all the four attitude questions when checked with

their relationship with purchase behavior of the respondents, failed to establish

any relationship, the researcher found no scope for further investigation.

Certainly the reasons for failure can be found out which are well taken care by

the open ended question which allows the respondents to express their views

openly about the reasons for failure and suggestions to improve the natural

environment.

There exists no relationship between attitude of the respondents and their

purchase behavior, but it has been noticed that people do not buy green but are

good at conserving the resources. And it is very much expected from those

who have a positive attitude towards saving the ecology.

The study has one of the hypotheses of testing the relationship of attitude and

conservation behavior further investigates it with the help of Chi Square test in

the same manner which was done for attitude and purchase behavior

relationship.

116

Table-17

Chi square test of attitude (Qu.No.1) and conservation behavior

I believe there is a lot that individuals can do to improve the

environment A1

Chi

square

d.

f.

Significance

level

Table

value

21. Conserve energy, water 53.6171 9 5% sign 16.9

22. Recycle bottles, can 86.8677 9 5% sign 16.9

23. Avoid excessive packaging 41.7626 9 5% sign 16.9

24. Volunteer for an environment group 54.7172 9 5% sign 16.9

25. Use sunscreens 106.208 9 5% sign 16.9

26. Write to politicians to draw their

attention towards environmental issues

34.1905 9 5% sign 16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower wattage

to conserve electricity

69.5903 9 5% sign 16.9

28. Avoid Non- vegetarian food 80.7371 9 5% sign 16.9

The 3rd

hypothesis which states There is no relationship between consumers

attitude and conservation behavior was tested for its validity with a Chi

Square test where first attitude question (Column) was tested with conservation

behavior questions (Rows) The table value of 2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5%

level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 in each case is much

higher than this table value which means that the calculated value cannot be

said to have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the

hypothesis is proved. This means that the attitude of considering oneself

capable of doing something good to the environment as portrayed by the

respondents does not relate with the conservation behavior. Hypothesis 3

accepted.

117

Similarly the second attitude question was tested with the conservation

behavior questions in the following manner:

Table 18

Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 2) and conservation

behavior

I believe that there is a lot that Municipal Corporation can do to improve the

environment (A2)

Chi

square

d

f

Significance

level

Table

Value






26. write to politicians to draw their


150.93 9 5% sign 16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower wattage

to conserve electricity

78.6552 9 5% sign 16.9


The 3rd

hypothesis which states There is no relationship between consumers

attitude and conservation behavior was tested for its validity with a Chi

Square test where second attitude question (Column) was tested with

conservation behavior questions (Rows) The table value of 2

for 9 degrees of

freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 in each

case is much higher than this table value which means that the calculated value


the hypothesis is proved. This means that the attitude of considering Municipal

Corporation as a responsible body to improve the natural environment as

answered by the respondents does not relate with the conservation behavior.

Hypothesis 3 accepted.

118

The next attitude question which addresses the plastic issue, the biggest

offender to ecology was also checked in the similar manner for its validity and

the results are as under:

Table 19

Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 3) and conservation behavior

Plastic has become a lifestyle in Pune and it is impossible to avoid it (A3)

Chi

square

d.

f.

Significance

level

Table

Value






26. write to politicians to draw their


73.8778 9 5% sign 16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower

wattage to conserve electricity

66.4144 9 5% sign 16.9


Chi Square test performed here on third attitude question (Column) and all

conservation behavior questions (Rows). The table value of 2 for 9 degrees of

freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2

in each

case is much higher than the table value which means that the calculated value


the hypothesis does hold good. This means that the group of consumers who

agree that plastic has become a lifestyle of Pune is impossible to change, even

after knowing the fact are not necessarily behaving in the manner to conserve

scarce resources. Hypothesis 3 accepted.

The last question of attitude was also checked for its validity and relationship

with the conservation behavior in the similar manner as follows:

Table-20

119

Chi square test of attitude (Question No.4) and conservation behavior

I believe in the environmental Information of product label (A4)

Chi

square

d.

f.

Significance

level

Table

Value






26. Write to politicians to draw their


130.87 9 5% sign 16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower

wattage to conserve electricity

113.834 9 5% sign 16.9


The results of Chi Square test as was performed on the data where forth

attitude question (Column) was tested with all conservation behavior questions

(Rows). The table value of 2

for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of

significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 in each case was much higher

than the table value which means that the calculated value cannot be said to

have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis

holds valid. This means that the attitude of respondents belief in the

environmental information on the product does not relate with the conservation

behavior. Hypothesis 3 accepted.

As with many of the demographic variables, however, the findings have been

somewhat equivocal. Some of the researchers correlated green attitudes and

behavior and found non-significant relationships (e.g. Roper, 1990; 1992)

between the two. The same hold true with the present study as well, where the

chi square test has rejected the existence of any significant relationship

between attitude and behaviors of sample respondents, where as studies

conducted by Antil7, 1984; Roberts

132, 1995; 1996b; Liere

98, 1981 examining

environmental concern as a correlate of environmentally friendly behavior

depicted totally contrast results and found a positive correlation between the

120

two. There exists no relationship between consumer attitudes and their

purchase and conservation behaviors. There is still a great scope of having

many eco savers in Pune. Thus the study further moves towards dividing

Punes total population into 5 predetermined segments.

ASSESSING AWARENESS AND SEGMENTATION OF SAMPLE

POPULATION ON PERCENTAGE BASIS:

One of the objectives of the present study was to classify the Pune consumers

into five categories according to their knowledge about environment

degradation, attitude towards environment, their purchase and conservation

behavior and perceived barriers in the way of adopting green lifestyle. For the

purpose, the method adopted for segmentation was the one adopted by Ropers

Green gauge survey (Please refer Chapter 2: Review of Literature - Green

consumer segmentation). Roper divided the US population on the basis of their

environmental attitudes and environmental behavior, barriers to green lifestyle

and environmental knowledge.

Basis of segmentation (adopted from Ropers Green gauge 1996)73

Segments Environmental

Attitudes

Environmental

Behaviors

Barriers to

Green

Living

Environmental

Knowledge

True Blue

Greens High High Low High

Green Backs High Moderate Moderately

Low

Moderate

Sprouts Moderately

Low

Moderate Moderate Moderately

Low

Grousers Low Moderately

Low High Low

Basic Browns Low Low High Low

121

Percentage analysis was conducted for dividing the population and results are

presented as under:

Results of Percentage analysis for consumer segmentation

TRUE BLUE GREENS 20 (4%)

GREEN BACKS 36 (7.2%)

SPROUTS 163 (32.6%)

GROUSERS 4 (0.8%)

BASIC BROWNS 277 (55.4%)

Figure 22: Shades of green

SHADES OF GREEN- A CONSUMER SEGMENTATION

ON ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR

Attitude (High)

Sprouts (163)

Behavior (Low) Behavior (High)

Grousers (4)

Attitude (Low)

True Blue Greens(20)

Browns (277)

Green Backs (36)

122

The percentage analysis shows that major population of Pune lies in basic

brown group which have low environmental attitude and behavior but portray

high barriers in adaptation of green lifestyle. The 4th

hypothesis is hereby

proved incorrect as the major (277 or 55.4%) of the sample population does

not possess proper knowledge about environmental degradation and the ways

to uplift the environmental present state. Or in other words the 4th

hypothesis

which states that Pune people are well aware of the environmental

degradation does not hold good here as more than half sample population

does not have proper knowledge about the environment.

However, the good news is that, the sample consisted of 163 (32.6%) sprouts

who although have somewhat low information about the environment and

having moderately low environmental attitude, still there is a great chance of

converting them to the green back and finally into True blues as they are

behaving in the direction of environmental conservation and show little

barriers in adopting eco friendly lifestyle.

Only 0.8% of Punes sample population falls under the category of grousers

which is quite a good sign for ecology as only 4 people out of 500 show low

concern about the environment in four variables except for behavior.

4% and 7.2% of the population is True blue greens and green backs

respectively which are the most concerned environmentalists. Although the

number is less but if given proper chance they can prove to be change leader

who can convert sprouts into green backs.

The above results are parallel with the findings of Ropers study conducted in

US in 199673

which depict that major US population falls under Basic Brown

category (37%), sprouts consist of 33% which is more than grousers (15%).

10% of US population is true blue greens and only 5% population is green

backs.

123

Sarigollu138

(2005) have come up with three distinct segments of Turkish

consumers on basis of their attitudes and behavior toward the environment as

follows:

1. Active concerned, are those who are concerned about the environment and

actively participating in such activities which are similar to the true blue

greens of our study (some more parameters have been taken for the present

segmentation)

2. Passive concerned, having concern for environment but unable to translate

into action because of any reason this group appears similar to our green

backs.

3. And unconcerned do not even believe that environmental problem is so big

to be bothered about; we can call them basic brown in our research.

The unconcerned are perhaps most reluctant to respond to environmentally

sensitive messages, mostly because their concern for day to day survival looms

larger than their concern for the environment. For the basic browns (In our

case) environmental action implies both financial and time costs. Another

factor that may inhibit the unconcerned from responding to environmental

messages is their belief that destiny and luck, not they themselves, are shaping

the future.

An essential step towards preventing further environmental problems is to

educate the basic browns. Simple but informative campaigns should convey a

reason and motivation for them to act in an environmentally sensitive manner.

The unconcerned are, in fact, concerned about the ill effects of the environment

on themselves and their family. However they do not act upon their concern.

An effective public campaign that first uses fear and guilt appeals and then

suggest an environmentally sensitive behavior as a simple solution may be

used. In the contest of Pune, such a public campaign would be most effectively

implemented by volunteer ambassadors who would visit poorer neighborhoods

to make personal and convincing appeals. There is evidence that personal

124

appeals have worked wonders in slum areas. In addition advertisements

promoting environmental behavior should be encouraged.

All environmentalists cannot be said to belong to one single category, because

people working for environment have their own motives like saving the planet,

conserving animals or simply protecting their own health. The population is

further sub divided into 3 groups on the basis of the criteria below:

Table 22

Categorization of Eco savers

Planet Passionate Health Fanatics Animal Lovers

1. Use Paper products made from recycled

paper

2. Use Biodegradable Household cleaning

products, Laundry

detergent, Lawn/garden

products

3. Use Biodegradable diapers Cars with

alternative fuel engines

1. Use products made from

natural raw

material

2. Use sun screen lotion

3. Use bottled water

1. Boycott tuna, ivory and fur

2. Check if products are

Cruelty free

3. Likely to be Vegetarian

On the basis of questions asked to the consumers, the result shows that

against the group of planet passionate, most of the people are interested in

their own health (206), 152 people showed their inclination towards saving

the planet. Only 139 people were found to be animal lovers.

SUB DIVISION OF ECO FRIENDLY CONSUMERS

Planet Passionate 152

Health Fanatics 206

Animal Lovers 142

125

Figure23: Sub division of eco savers

Figure 23 ; Subdivision of Eco Savers

The open ended question requesting the suggestions to improve the

condition of the environment produces the following results (the

frequently given suggestions are included)

4.5 COMPILATION OF SUGGESTIONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS

TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Using eco-friendly products

Regular vehicular pollution check ups

Avoid using plastic

Gather and spread environmental information

0

50

100

150

200

250

1

Given a chance I would like to be a part of

Friendds of Earth National Wild Life Organisation National Health Organisation

N um b e r o f R e s p o n d e n t s

126

Make optimal use of resources

More use of public transport

Tree plantation

Enforcement of law

Water harvesting

Proper treatment and disposal of industrial and household waste

Educate people about ways to conserve scarce resources

Improve public transport system

Developing green pastures

NGO should come forward for environmental protection

Water management and waste treatment

Recycling scrap

Many of the suggestions given by respondents are matching with the study of

Times of India (2011)143

which reported that Indians believe that the

government should invest in improved public transport systems (23%) and that

there should be government incentives (tax breaks or subsidies 22%) to

promote non-polluting behavior. 28% Indians felt that there should be major

government-led initiatives for research into scientific and technological

solutions like low-emission cars and renewable energy. Nearly three out of

every 10 Indians said that there should be a change to use of more energy

efficient bulbs, fixtures and electrical appliances to combat climate change.

More than a quarter of Indian consumers believe in recycling consumer waste

and saving electricity to address issues of climate change and global warming

Finally, from the above study even the self declared green consumers were not

equipped or motivated enough to make decisions regarding the most significant

issue for each purchase, and alter their purchase accordingly. In addition, they

127

did not have the time for research, information interpretation and product

search required for green purchasing. So its a matter of worry that any

government policy that solely relies on green consumers (never mind grey

consumers) as agents of change for consumer products is misguided. The

results showed that green consumers can use their buying power to make a

difference, but a high cost in terms of effort and time, is a significant barrier.

These consumers need help from government in the form of incentives and

single issue labels to show them where they should be concentrating their

limited efforts. More fundamentally, being green needs time and space in

peoples lives that is not available in increasingly busy lifestyles. Therefore,

there need to be coherent sustainable production and consumption policies

across government departments, not just green advice to consumers.

Evidently there are more trends that can be described from the table, but for the

purposes of brevity only limited and important implications have been drawn.

It is interesting to note that those most committed to sustainable consumption

were older. In contrast, those who were non-environmentalists tended to be

males, on low incomes.

Documents

10 Chapter 4